PACIFIC REGIONAL INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK (RIF)

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 SUVA 000327

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: AORC EAID PREL XV FJ
SUBJECT: PACIFIC REGIONAL INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK (RIF)
JUNE 14 MEETING -- CONSIDERABLE CRITICISM

REF: STATE 82331

Summary
--------------

1. (U) In a June 14 meeting in Suva, managers of the Pacific
Islands Forum (PIF) Regional Institutional Framework (RIF)
task force attempted to buttress the case for an amalgamation
of five regional technical agencies under a Secretariat of
the Pacific Community (SPC) umbrella. Advocates spoke of
duplications and inefficiencies under current arrangements
and urged "best practices." A number of Pacific-nation
delegations raised significant concerns about the
amalgamation plan -- legal, financial, and bureaucratic --
and several called for additional reform options. Reps from
each of the five affected agencies spoke, with most
expressing reservations about the RIF plan. The U.S. played
a constructive role, raising serious questions, per reftel,
that were echoed by several others. RIF managers promised
fulsome answers. Another RIF meeting is scheduled for
September, prior to the next PIF leaders meeting in Tonga.
Before then, in light of significant expressions of concern,
even opposition to the current plan, RIF managers are tasked
to reflect and continue consulting, including about new
options. As requested, we issued an invitation for a RIF
manager to visit Washington. RIF proposes to send Bob Dun at
an early date of Washington's choosing. End summary.

The RIF proposal
--------------

2. (U) In a day-long meeting on June 14 at the Pacific
Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS) in Suva, representatives
from Pacific island governments and territories, France, the
United States, and regional institutions discussed the
proposed amalgamation of five regional technical agencies
(Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC),South Pacific
Regional Environmental Program (SPREP),South Pacific Applied
Geoscience Commission (SOPAC),Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA),
and South Pacific Board for Education Assessment (SPBEA)).
The proposed new Regional Institutional Framework (RIF) would
have the SPC become an umbrella under which the current
programs of the five agencies would be clustered. FFA,
SPREP, and SOPAC would become distinct SPC directorates.

Urwin: strive for the best
--------------

3. (U) In opening remarks, PIF Secretary General Greg Urwin
suggested the goal should be for all regional organizations
to provide "best service" to constituents. He suggested the
current structure may be "OK," but, he asked rhetorically,
"Is it the best?" Urwin referred to duplication, uncertain
mandates, and an excessive amount of effort needed to
coordinate activities under the current "CROP" mechanism.
Urwin noted that the PIFS and SPC are consulting on how those
two organizations can most effectively divide
responsibilities: judging "who best does what." That process
will continue. Urwin said the RIF is an equivalent exercise
aimed to rationalize responsibilities for the technical
agencies.

Pangalinan focused on amalgamation
--------------

4. (U) The PIFS RIF Task Force Director, former SPC Director
General Lou Pangalinan, reported on efforts since the PIF
Leaders Meeting last October in Nadi, Fiji, to respond to
Leaders' requests for a more thorough study of the
ramifications of an amalgamation, including legal and
financial effects. Pangalinan painted an encouraging
picture, as spelled out in her overview papers. (We have
provided copies of all RIF papers to EAP/ANP.) Pangalinan
continued to stress her, and Greg Urwin's, view that current
coordination mechanisms are not working well enough and that
significant gains in service delivery to the islands can be
gained from bringing the five agencies under a single
management structure. Pangalinan announced that a previously
proposed split of FFA responsibilities between the umbrella
SPC and the PIF has been scrapped. She suggested that
merging FFA and SPC "fish-related" services could be
beneficial, as could a rationalization of SPREP and SOPAC
activities. She suggested an amalgamation would result in
new resources for SPREP. She proposed that the initial

SUVA 00000327 002 OF 004


decision to amalgamate "should not be too prescriptive about
details of the eventual realignment." The umbrella SPC's
Director General and program team should have flexibility to
make such judgments over time.

Legalities: all hail sovereignty
--------------

5. (U) Pangalinan and the Samoan author of a RIF legal paper
indicated that, if all parties to all agreements have the
will, the parties can legally restructure using whatever
mechanism they wish. The legal expert did note, though, a
"difficulty" of SPREP and FFA relationships with other
treaties that must be addressed. Pangalinan emphasized that
each member of each current agency must agree to any changes.
She added that, if PIF leaders decide to endorse the RIF
task force proposals, they can instruct their delegates to
the various regional agencies to support amalgamation, and
they can lobby non-PIF nations (the U.S. and France) to
agree. If all members of all agencies agree, the integration
process can proceed. Pangalinan noted the SPC governing
council will be the first to meet after this October's PIF in
Tonga. At that point, we intervened, raising several USG
questions (reftel) about the legalities and noting we had
passed a list of USG questions to Pangalinan prior to the
meeting. (Note: With that, the meeting chair distributed all
the USG questions to all participants. That worked out well,
as a number of island reps later intervened to note how USG
concerns mirrored their own. We specifically raised a number
of the questions at appropriate points and received assurance
that RIF managers would provide answers to all the USG
questions in due course.)

Protecting U.S. treaty rights
--------------

6. (U) Australia noted its impression that some legal issues
may be more difficult to manage than the legal paper
suggests. New Caledonia asked if the aim is a "less than
treaty" effort, which would be difficult for France. The RIF
legal expert said the intention is "treaty status in the end"
with all agency treaties being amended. The legal expert
said that, while a purist might suggest no actual change can
take place until all amendments are in force, the RIF
managers believe the region can "undertake a range of
activities once the PIF leaders bless the process." We then
intervened again to emphasize the USG judgment that the
various affected agencies (like SPC and SPREP) must make
their own decisions before implementation begins. While the
USG has great respect for the PIF leaders, we are not a
member of the PIF and we have treaty rights that must be
honored.

Financial analysis: no great savings
--------------

7. (U) In discussing financial aspects, Pangalinan and the
RIF's accountant advisor suggested amalgamation could, in
future, result in savings or cost increases per judgments of
the umbrella SPC. The RIF financial paper discussed possible
initial savings and costs, judging that any initial savings
are likely to be quite modest, with personnel savings mostly
offset by increased French-language translation costs. The
initial RIF proposal had suggested that annual meetings could
be consolidated; however, current thinking is that the annual
sectoral meetings "will not be reduced initially," since such
meetings provide detailed policy guidance that might not be
possible during an annual umbrella SPC meeting.

Initially stay "cost neutral" for donors
--------------

8. (U) Pangalinan said initially the intention is to maintain
the "core SPC" budget as "cost neutral." She confirmed the
financial paper's assumption that all current SPC members
would, in effect, begin utilizing all five agencies' services
under an amalgamation. That would presumably increase costs
for SOPAC and FFA services which, at present, the U.S. and
its territories do not utilize. Pangalinan clearly was aware
of USG concerns about any possible increased assessments
under an amalgamation. A chart of "Possible Membership
Contributions in Enlarged SPC" distributed at the meeting
left blank the slots for donor (Australia, France, NZ, U.S.)
contributions, saying in a footnote that "the SPC formula

SUVA 00000327 003 OF 004


allows percentage share among donor members to be decided by
donor members." Pangalinan had previously suggested to us
that if, in future, SPC core contributions need to rise,
Australia and New Zealand might well agree to foot any
perceived USG portion of the increase. We made clear a USG
concern about leaving for later discussion any possible
adjustments to current funding formulas.

Many island reps raise concerns
--------------

9. (U) Many Pacific regional meetings are quiet affairs. The
RIF meeting was an exception. Nearly every country's
representative made comments, sometimes quite negative
comments about the RIF vision. Interventions by the Cooks,
Solomon Islands, and Tonga kicked things off with expressions
of concern about amalgamating the FFA into an umbrella SPC
with much broader membership, and about possibly creating a
"bloated" institution that might be less efficient than the
current set-up. Nauru, represented by a former PIF Deputy
SG, proposed to explore other options that might better link
technical-agency reform to the Pacific Plan vision. The
Nauru rep is now tasked to prepare a paper to flesh out his
ideas. Samoa was repeatedly vocal, arguing that the
environment and fish are "dominant issues" for the region,
and they need stand-alone organizations. Later Samoa asked
why there has been no consideration of "some physical
consolidation" of agencies. Pangalinan said such ideas ought
to await creation of the umbrella SPC which could at a later
date consider realignments. Samoa, Fiji, and PNG all asked
for more options to be presented to Pacific leaders. The FSM
said it remains uncomfortable, particularly with how the FFA
and SPREP would be handled. Vanuatu asked if contribution
formulas other than the SPC version are being considered.

And some expressions of support
--------------

10. (U) Reps from Australia, Guam, French Polynesia, New
Caledonia, and France spoke up for amalgamation, referring to
the need for better coordination than at present. The Guam
rep noted her territory is facing "a period of drastic
change" and will need technical assistance to deal with the
impact. France said some clarifications are still needed,
but advantages far outweigh difficulties. New Caledonia and
New Zealand suggested an umbrella SPC would add to Pacific
visibility in international fora. New Zealand said it is
very supportive of the desire to "get better;" but questions
remain and the sorts of details raised by the USG questions
are needed in advance of the PIF meeting in October.

Technical agency reps subdued
--------------

11. (U) Late in the day, reps from the five technical
agencies offered their views. SPREP's rep proposed, in
effect, "If it ain't broke don't fix it." He said past
criticisms have been of the PIF, not the technical agencies.
He suggested that the region "thoroughly negotiate" any
successor treaty arrangement before abandoning the SPREP
treaty currently in place. SPBEA complained it had not been
consulted at all as yet. FFA suggested that an integrated
approach to "oceanic fish" issues is needed. The RIF was
discussed at length at the recent FFC meeting in New Zealand
and a report would follow. SOPAC said the RIF engendered
much debate at the last governing council meeting, with no
consensus and some concern whether an amalgamation would
result in better service. The SPC said it supports
considering the RIF process if it can improve service.
Certainly, the status quo can be improved without
amalgamation, but some problems would remain. Many questions
still need answers, and it may be worth exploring other
options.

Looking at options before meeting in September
-------------- -

12. (U) There is to be another RIF meeting in September in
the lead-up to the October Forum. In the meantime,
Pangalinan and her team are tasked to continue reflecting and
consulting, including on whether other options need to be
considered. Urwin and Pangalinan clearly would have
preferred to charge ahead, merely refining the current RIF
proposal. They argued that terms of reference (TOR) from PIF

SUVA 00000327 004 OF 004


leaders focused only on the current RIF plan. Nauru's rep
disputed that view, saying the PIF leaders' TOR was open
ended. Given strong sentiment from many quarters to slow
down and consider alternatives, Urwin said further guidance
from PIF leaders may be needed. Pangalinan will put together
a draft chairman's letter before September, attempting to
provide PIF leaders a summary of the mixed views and thoughts
on options.

Invitation to Washington accepted: timing?
--------------

13. (U) We reiterated the USG invitation for Pangalinan to
visit Washington soon for detailed discussions. She and
Urwin both have endorsed the trip. Pangalinan said, though,
that the person to travel is likely to be Bob Dun, an
Australian who as Director General of the SPC transformed
that institution in the late 1990s, with Pangalinan as his
deputy. Dun is now serving as a senior advisor to the RIF
process. He has great influence on RIF developments and is
well worth Washington's time. Dun said he can adjust his
schedule to meet Washington needs. A late June visit would
be fine with him. Please advise.
DINGER